Skip to main content

Table 1 Previous meta-analyses on pathways to mental health care in the UK

From: Ethnic inequalities and pathways to care in psychosis in England: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Study

Ethnicity categories

GP, n,

odds ratio (OR), 95% CI

Civil/forensic detention, n, odds ratio (OR), 95% CI

Police or CJS, n,

odds ratio (OR), 95% CI

DUP

AMSTAR quality

(max = 11)

Anderson et al. 2014 [6]

White (reference)

–

 

–

 

Total = 7

(Medium quality)

Black Groups

N = 5 studies, OR = 0.66

(95% CI = 0.53 to 0.82)

Police/CJS: N = 5 studies, OR = 2.14

(95% CI = 1.66 to 2.76)

Asian Groups

N = 3 studies, OR = 1.24

(95% CI = 0.81 to 1.91)

Police/CJS: N = 3 studies, OR = 0.73

(95% CI = 0.34 to 1.57)

Bhui et al. 2003 [3]

White (reference)

 

–

  

Total = 9

(High quality)

Black

Civil: N = 12 studies, OR = 4.31

(95% CI = 3.33 to 5.58)

Singh et al. 2007 [5]

White (reference)

 

–

  

Total = 6

(Medium quality)

Black

Civil: N = 15 studies, OR = 4.48

(95% CI = 3.71 to 5.41)

Forensic: N = 2 studies, OR = 2.45

(95% CI = 1.57 to 3.82)

Asian

 

Civil: N = 4 studies, OR = 3.42

(95% CI = 2.31 to 5.07)

Singh et al. 2013 [4]

Black vs. Non-Black

N = 4 studies, OR = 0.50

(95% CI = 0.35 to 0.71)

Civil: N = 6 studies, OR = 2.33

(95% CI = 1.85 to 2.93)

Police/CJS: N = 4 studies, OR = 2.25

(95% CI = 1.74 to 2.92)

 

Total = 5

(Medium quality)

Black Caribbean vs. White British

Civil: N = 2 studies, OR = 2.88

(95% CI = 1.84 to 4.51)

Asian vs. broadly defined White

Civil: N = 2 studies, OR = 0.59

(95% CI = 0.25 to 1.39)